Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Office Action is in response to claims filed on 1/10/2024 where claims 1-28 are pending and ready for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “receiving at a first device the first plurality of packets from a second device” and subsequently references this “fist plurality of packets” in the context of both acknowledgement and triggering a negotiation to perform multi-packet acknowledgement. However the claim fails to provide sufficient clarity for the “first plurality of packets” such that one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty, Specifically:
It is unclear whether the “first plurality of packets” refers to a single group of packets received prior to the triggering event or to multiple, sequential groups of packets processed differently before and after the triggering event.
The use of the same term for packets acknowledged individually and those used as a basis for triggering a negotiation for multi-packet acknowledgement introduces internal inconsistently or chronological ambiguity.
Without additional structure or temporal limitations it is unclear whether “first plurality of packets” are fully acknowledged before the triggering event, partially acknowledged, or if the acknowledgement and negotiation processes overlap.
Furthermore, the claim recites “determining that a triggering event has occurred” and “negotiating to perform multi-packet acknowledgement ... in response to the triggering event” The triggering event is not sufficiently defined the claim language to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand what specifically constitutes such an event. The claims does not specify whether the triggering event is based on a threshold, a signal, a protocol parameter, or another definable condition. As a result the claim lacks the required precision to satisfy the definiteness requirement under 112(b), as it is not reasonably certain what conditions will give rise to the negotiation process.
In the view of the foregoing, the claim fails to reasonably apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the invention and is therefore indefinite under 35 USC 112b.
The dependent claims of claim 1 are also rejected as they do cure the deficiencies detailed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TODD L. BARKER whose telephone number is (571) 270 0257. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272 7304.
/TODD L BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights